What kind of project should I use ? I tried a WCF web site and then copied the directory into my DNN site and tried to goto the .svc file without success. Is DNN 6 for 3.5 only? Should I be running it as integrate and 4.0 in iis ?
The value for the 'compilerVersion' attribute in the provider options must be 'v4.0' or later if you are compiling for version 4.0 or later of the .NET Framework. To compile this Web application for version 3.5 or earlier of the .NET Framework, remove the 'targetFramework' attribute from the element of the Web.config file.
DNN has supported .NET 4 since DNN 5.4 (or thereabouts) and supports integrated mode in IIS (since early DNN 5.x).
It sounds like maybe you copied over the DNN web.config, which isn't going to work (there a lot of stuff in there that DNN needs to work correctly). Or, maybe you copied the WCF web.config into a subdirectory of the DNN site? If so, you probably just want to merge those web.config settings with the main config.
The main issue that I've had with getting WCF to work in DNN is making sure that WCF is installed with IIS (so it correctly handles the .svc extension).
Related
I have written an ASP.NET Core Web API, and published it on my plesk (hosting) web server, but it is not working - it is working in my test environment (localhost).
Important to know that my plesk (hosting) server use the version 4.8 of the .NET Framework and my API uses .NET Core 6; is that the reason it doesn't work? (I use the version 4.8 cause my web server host a website in webforms).
Here's the url to access the api on the web that throws an error 500 (any call return that)
https://apinhl.nhldynastypool.com/NHLAHLStatsAndSalaryInfo
In the screenshot below, I will post the file tree that I have in plesk (hosting) maybe it has something to do.
I have tried many thing but nothing seems to work I really need your help I do not have a clue what to do now it is the first time I try to deploy a web api and sorry for my bad English my main language is French :)
No cause i have to go to .net core 2.1 to work on .net framework 4.8 and all my code broke lol so i guess i have no other chpice to rewrote it in .net 4.8 framework in a webapp project
I want to change the local host name so http://localhost/app1 could, say, become http://app1 - for a few different ASP.net Core 2.1 MVC websites.
I'm using IIS in Windows 10. (I have all sorts of reliability issues with IIS Express every time I try it - I'd rather use full IIS).
I've followed this article:
https://www.mojoportal.com/adding-a-host-name-to-the-hosts-file-for-local-testing
changing the hosts file then adding new websites in IIS rather than adding applications under the default website.
I want to do this for various reasons including preventing passwords from autofilling across many websites on localhost.
This works fine on MVC 5 sites - but in .net Core 2.1 MVC sites I get a
HTTP Error 502.5 - Process Failure
If I look in the log - and I've tried this on various sites - I get an error such as this:
An assembly specified in the application dependencies manifest
(AppName.deps.json) was not found:
package: 'Stripe.net', version: '19.8.0'
path: 'lib/netstandard1.2/Stripe.net.dll'
This doesn't only happen for Stripe.
The deps.json file I guess is being dynamically created - I can't find it. The sites deploy to the server fine.
Why does this happen - and how can I change hostname away from localhost for .net core 2.1 MVC sites?
If I create a template .net Core 2.1 MVC site it lets me do it fine, strangely but can see no obvious differences.
I can't find anything on Google directly about this though I've looked for a few hours.
I found this - but it didn't help:
ASP .NET Core 2.0 Change "localhost" to a "hostname"
Thanks.
Update
A vanilla .net core mvc 2.1 application works fine but as soon as 1 nuget package is installed this error happens again:
An assembly specified in the application dependencies manifest
(hosttest.deps.json) was not found
So there's some path issue to nuget packages - can't find how to fix it though.
I'm using Visual Studio Express 2015RC and I created a simple MVC 6 application, but when I try to publish it I don't see the option to deploy it to IIS, I see the options Microsoft Azure Web App, Import and File System, I tried the File System but It looks like it is more for creating stand alone applications to be launched from a console, now, when debugging I can select IIS Express or the web command, there is no IIS option, so the question is, how can I deploy the MVC6 web application I created to IIS?
File System publish is actually exactly what you want; All DNX applications are stand-alone, whether for ASP.NET 5 or a console app.
When you publish to the File System, you get a few folders; the wwwroot (assuming you kept the default in your project.json) folder is where IIS should point. The web.config in that folder is generated for you automatically assuming you keep everything else where it is.
For what it's worth, the official documentation will probably be here, once it's written. Also, on Stack Overflow, ASP.NET 5 project hosting on IIS probably has some useful information, though it looks like it's a bit out of date at the moment.
I have successfully set up an API using ASP.NET MVC 4 on IIS6 (I used Phil's tutorial). When testing, we had it as the "Default website" and so there was no conflict with anything else. I am now being asked to set this up within a FOLDER of an existing website (the existing website is in ASP 1.0...and I cannot modify this...so I would some sort of virtual...something?). So basically, if we have https://www.ourcompany.com, they want the API to be available through https://www.ourcompany.com/api/.
Is this even possible? Phil's tutorial talks about setting up a Virtual Application, but I don't have that option in IIS (and if I had, I'm not knowledgeable enough about IIS to know if that would even allow me to access the API that way). I don't want anything that I set up to mess up the current website either, and there are a couple steps in the tutorial that I'll freely admit I don't fully understand.
If your curious as to WHY, the only advantage (besides being "neat") is so that the same SSL Cert can be used.
Yes that's definately possible at my work we had a similar setup, IIS6, a .NET 3.5 web, with a .NET 4.0 web nested underneath.
You would just set it up as a virtual directory underneath the parent website, point it to your folder, and ensure the value for the "Execute Permissions" dropdown is "Scripts Only" or above, and the correct .NET framework version selected on the ASP.NET tab.
There may be additional values you may need to over-write in your child web.config file, or, alternatively, wrap the entire parent web config with a "Location" attribute.
Forgot to mention, you may need to add manual script mappings for the child web if it doesn't work by default. (This installs the .NET 4.0 script mappings to a specific web) though again not sure if this is required by default. See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/k6h9cz8h.aspx
One more thing - If you're using REST (or an extension less URL mapping which I believe an MVC 4 web will use) - You'll need to add a "wild card" script mapping, which basically tells IIS to serve requests with no extension with the .NET 4.0 framework - See here However where they're referencing .NET 2.0 folders, you'll obviously want to reference the same files but in the .NET 4.0 folders :)
Thanks
I am using Unity 2.0 with Silverlight 4 and RIA Services. Is xml configuration not supported in the web project of a Silverlight Business Application? The only way I can get the resolve method of the container to work is if I register my types at runtime vs design time in the xml config file.
Not at this time - Silverlight doesn't have System.Configuration, which is the library that runs the app.config / web.config file. It would take a LOT of duplicated code to get the existing config syntax working in Silverlight.
There was a project on Codeplex to provide a XAML-based configuration system for Silverlight apps using Unity.
Update: found it - http://sonicnet.codeplex.com - I guess I had a bad link when looking before.